"EMPIRE and Stars*n*Bars available once again!" Topic

Surrender to the call of Il Duce Murphy. Nothing is as much fun as creaming someone with an army 'everyone knows sucks'…

Salt is a given if it's buttered Koyoteblue.

"I only have Empire from the 3rd Edition and Stars'n'Bars from the same time period, but can anyone tell me definitively whether that Concept, heavily trademarked and copyrighted in both of them, was in Duffy and the RMA first?? Was it in any edition of Empire before 1975?"

Good point, well brought out, mekelnborg. Someone will have to ask Christopher the next time he's over for a SYWA convention. I recall that this came up in the late '80s/early '90s. Two of us out here in the desert, who both played The Rules That Shall Not Be Named at the time, also both happened to have copies of "Fire and Stone". We also frequently visited Sandhurst, and Dr. Duffy was still there.

Over the port one visit, we asked Christopher about those siege games. The port circulated freely, so I am a little foggy, but I seem to recall that the games in question, as photographed in the book, took place a few years before the book's publication.

In any case, the first edition of The Rules That Shall Not Be Named was published in 1977; and I don't think the TTC arrived until TRTSNBN III. So the "Fire and Stone" use of the concept certainly has precedence.

That's not to say that it was the *first* use in tabletop gaming. I somewhat suspect that it was not.

Allen

I too played many games of Empire back in the mid 90's, I did enjoy the system and had a great deal of fun.

However, I found that the system did not portray half as accurately the simulation of firepower as they make out. For example, if you have a btln of say 12 figures of Old Guard firing at a same sized btln of Landwehr you have the following:

OG – 23% x 12 figs = 276% (2 full figure casualties with a 76% chance of scoring a third).

LW – 6% x 12 figs = 72% (just a 76% chance of scoring one single fig casualty on the enemy).

No matter how you look at this and try to justify that the OG were perfect crack shots with a fire discipline unequal in human history they are not going to score such a huge differential over a landwehr btln firing back if all else is equal. This is totally unrealistic. it tells the players that no matter what, the OG will destroy the LW in one single fire round or at most two rounds with absolutely NO chance for the LW to cause the OG to fail. And in the above example the LW are not assured of scoring one single fig casualty at all while the OG assuredly score two and probably 3.

Now, this is an extreme case I understand this. However, it is the extreme cases that you must measure the validity of the system to arrive at a determination of their viability to reproduce historically accurate simulations. I think Empire fails in this aspect alone.

Now, if you move on to their artillery firing system you see similar things occurring. We all know that the French artillery was good but so were many other nations artillery. For example the Russian artillery is well known for being able to put up a very productive fire against the French. But in Empire the French artillery is rated at the best, Class "I" while most others (except the British) are rated 2nd or 3rd. The Russians are very under-rated as far as I am concerned.

I have many problems with the system, although I love the national characteristics I feel that the differences Empire has given to each level of eliteness (class) has been stretched too far. For example, there are ten different classes for small arms firing which in itself is far too many. But what I find worse is the difference between each of these 10 classes. At one end of the spectrum you have OG rated at 30% per figure compared to untrained militia at 1.5% per figure. Now we all know that the OG were very experienced men with high skill and great ability for fire discipline but to say they are capable of producing 20 times the fire power of the worst unit is really stretching the imagination for me. That shows that the OG would fire and cause a 360% loss (3.6 figs) on the UM while they would only produce an 18% chance of taking out 1 fig on the OG. This is also very clear with the artillery rules.

These are the reasons I stopped playing the system, I could not feel comfortable playing a system that produces outcomes that are so extreme.

I am going to get hammered by Empire advocates here I know this but surely you guys must also see what I have shown and felt that in many cases on your battlefields that truths are a little stretched in this system?

As for how long it took to play a battle with Empire I have no issue with whatsoever, I enjoy systems where the battle keeps going for as long as possible, many players who have lots of room and a permanent gaming table like I do actually prefer to play more detailed systems that play out longer where I live anyway. I am not saying that Empire is a crap system in any way, all I am saying is that I do not agree with the factors they came up with. I totally disagree with how they rated many things in this system. And this is much of the problem many others had with Empire also.

Shane

Since the discussion is about Empire…I'll join.

The rules have always worked better for me if I thought of them as a 'simulation'. The Maneuver Element concept was a light bulb for me, and caused me to see the battalions as more than just individual units.

It was really Legacy of Glory that took it to the next level though. Empire didn't have much depth in high-level command. LoG brought it to the forefront of the game – to the point where the Division was just a unit to me…the real action was between the CnC – Corps commanders and Corps commanders to Div. Commanders. What happened to an individual figure or battlion didn't concern me in the least. It was the DIVISION morale that mattered.

Hey Murphy, you can't answer Il Duce's call until after you finish the Tricky Dick.

@Shane: I'm something of an Empire advocate, but no worries. Far from getting hammered I fully agree with you. I write and rewrite my own rules on a daily basis and have for about 36 years, as was certainly widespread in those days. In my earliest development I was shielded from rules fanboys and instead learned from British authors how it should be done.

My first rules were very like Leon Tucker's Grosstaktik when that was all I knew. Later my eyes were opened by the same author's Short Rules. The first was 18th Century and the second was Napoleonic. Tucker also did Tractics with Mike Reese. Our TMP member Don Lowry illustrated and marketed it.

By 1976 I was turned in a new direction: what C.F. Wesencraft called Wargaming in the Grand Manner. Perversely he who invented the term meant exactly the opposite of how the term is now understood after Peter Gilder's vast and sweeping games, which are much better known today.

In Wesencraft's Practical Wargaming, Hippocrene, 1974, the Grand Manner meant that his Battalions from the tactical game were turned into Divisions where the 20x32 men were transformed into 20x256 men by merely saying so, and adjusting scales and procedures accordingly. Thus a much, much smaller game for a bigger battle, same troops and space. That is what the term really means, from 1974 English.

Now my rules today are at 1:40,000 scale for Malplaquet, the Siege of Tournai and the Siege of Mons plus the storming of St.Ghislain. The whole shebang fits on my dining room table with the Malplaquet portion about seven inches square in 2mm.

Now ever since the very beginning I've found that the rules that made the greatest impressions on me tend to have bits and pieces turn up in my constantly changing own rules, which could not be published. And some parts of Mr. Bowden's Empire have been part of the recurring concepts, ever since I first comprehended them.

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

And when Empire came out I had never seen anything quite like it. That trademark and copyright scared the bejeezus out of me, for it seemed to threaten my very way of life: my hobby of rewriting my rules with undeniable influences from the ones I liked from elsewhere.

I still have great respect for nearly all Mr. Bowden has done, I have only two or three minor problems with him, and I do not care one whit if he violated the rules of a big and popular forum or just was suspected of it.

I really don't mind one whit if he lifted the TELESCOPED tactical moves from Duffy, I'd even bet Duffy doesn't either, nor would I one bit mind if I found out later that Peter Young had suggested it, or another unknown person who was standing there.

I d--- the audacity of placing a specially registered and intimidating and creativity-stifling special legal copyright notice on every mention of the infamous Telescoping Time Con cept throughout the 'said rules' which appeared in print some years after having already appeared in someone ELSE's print in 100 year Royal Copyright with the very unlikely coincidence of the word TELESCOPE associated with time and tactical moves, about as likely as winning the mega-million lottery such a Con cept would appear by chance, because had it not been for that copyright notice appearing in a manner unheard of in any other wargame rules which were then routinely and cheerfully borrowed from by all and sundry, I coulda been a contenda!

Only because that Con cept, and the system of orders, were very difficult to shake loose from my head once exposed because I am not sure I've ever seen anything better.

What I have seen better and maybe even done better is to simplify the whole thing, and add in bits of Bruce Quarrie, or Wesencraft, or Glidden et al. Hugh Davies of London comes to mind.

If inadvertently the idea travelled through the great One Consciousness and inserted itself into Empire innocently and as if original and earth-shakingly important enough for a special trademark, it would not be the first time a great author had borrowed. Washington Irving wrote a great short story about authors robbing others, dead ones, in a library.

Here on page 104 of Laurence Sterne in Germany we see Goethe defended for it, in "Ist Goethe Plagiarius Lorenz Sternes?" and then devastated in a 1905 doctoral thesis showing he was alive when he may have robbed Sterne (Tristram Shandy) on page 105. But he greatly admired Sterne, and wanted others to see what he did.

Thank you aecurtis, I suspected as much. It's been bothering me for a long time.

But I do have great respect for Mr. Bowden and would love to be able to just laugh it off, and play a game.

It never was the end, kyote. ;)

For me the best thing about Empire was the army lists, which I appreciate did not translate well into their tabletop mathematics but were the basis of how I assessed units for my own games.

Empire 5th Edition sounds like a good set of rules, anyone know where I could get a copy?

As a mere youngster i heard that Empire was the thing to play--Is it better than Newbury Rules or Shako(which I hate)??

very interesting story mekelnborg, it seems there is a much deeper history to the concept than is even detailed before. I did notice the copyright all throughout the Empire rules and although I did not know the story I kind of figured that Scott and his team wanted to make sure no one touched this concept at all. To me, it was a little over the top.

With Empire I have played that system in 25mm – 15mm and 6-10mm. What I found is that you cannot play the telescoping concept on an average width table at all properly. Even on a 6 foot wide table the movement puts the attacking formation right in front of the enemy in a single bound. 15mm, although better is nowhere as good as using 6-10mm armies. This I feel is the only scale that shows "Grand Tac" and "bombardment" rules of Empire in at its best.

Shane

archstanton73, Empire is a different level of play. A more 11:50 operational level than Shakp which is more tactical 1;30 ratio.

Immposible to compare.

I thought I would show the differences between each fire rating in a fire fight of each fire class to show the large differences between each of the 10 classes. It was not so much the fact that there were 10 classes that annoyed me about Empire but that the differential between each class was so much. So he is a list of the multiplier factors for each class for firing on an enemy column. These factors are multiplied by the number of figures you are firing with. This gives you the total percentage that is used to mathematically produce the inflicted casualties. For each "full" 100% scored you inflict one full figure casualties on your opponents' column. The percentage remainder is then rolled using that left over as a percentage you must get equal to or under to produce an extra casualty. So 360% is equal to automatically inflicting 3 figure casualties with a 60% of scoring a 4th. Although this concept is mathematically sound and actually very simple to use I believe it creates such a distorted range of casualties that it is totally out of whack with reality when comparing one fire class to another. Basically, the difference between each class is way too large for my liking, so much so that when you get to the extreme ends (parameters) of both ends of the scale you get wildly inaccurate results. Like I said earlier, the difference between the worst and best fire rating ends up being in the vicinity of 15 times the difference!!! No one can tell me that the worst troops firing are going to score 1/15th of the casualties that the best fire class troops would score if all else was equal and both sides had the same number of shots with the same number of muskets. That just does not make sense.

Here are the ratings for small arms firing (per fig) in 3 ranks firing at columns by fire class:

Old Guard – 30%
Guards – 24%
Grenadiers – 20%
Elites – 16%
Crack Line – 12%
Veteran Line – 10%
Conscript Line – 8%
Landwehr – 6%
Trained Militia – 4%
Untrained Militia – 2%

So, do the math and you will see that the range of outcomes is huge in comparison between OG and UM, actually, the difference ends up showing that the OG would have 15 times the amount of percentage points as would the UM, not 20 times as I calculated in my previous post. However, even 15 times the ability to inflict casualties is huge in anyone's language. And if the two btlns were firing at each other for a second turn the numbers would get worse. We tried several experiments on this and were horrified at the results. It really turned us off the system. Furthermore, if you look at this table you will note that be gap between Crack Line and Elites jumps from 2% point increments to 4 percentage points. Then the OG jumps to a further 6 base points higher again. Til this day I still cannot understand the logic behind this. Doing the math you can see that Grenadier rated troop's fire twice as effectively as Veteran troops….huh? and OG would be thrice as effective as veterans…I do not understand how they arrived at that logic.

We almost re-wrote the fire charts to reflect our own thinking at the time and came up with this:

Old Guard – 12%
Guards – 11%
Grenadiers – 10%
Elites – 9%
Crack Line – 8%
Veteran Line – 7%
Conscript Line – 6%
Landwehr – 5%
Trained Militia – 4%
Untrained Militia – 3%

This would have yielded a much reduced range between the OG and UM to only x4 in the OG's favour. Although still high it would be only 4 times not 15 times as in Scott's version, and to our way of thinking much more accurate. But in the end we walked away rather than try to re-write it.

I don't want to harp on about what is wrong with Empire, there are many areas of every rules system that seem wrong to most players. This is why there are so many systems out there and so many groups unwilling to play the same rules as the next group. Empire had many sections that also were great about it and really got you involved and every battle was enjoyable for me. But in the end I just could not get past the issues I had with the system and how things were rated so I moved on. Nothing is perfect.

Shane

With Empire (and Legacy of Glory too) my group would have a larger map on paper covering the area around the table. Then the moves could be off table.

yeah, I have heard of another 25mm group who does this…that would be the only real way to get around the issue. But it would take a huge amount of agreement from both sides I would imagine…

I did notice the copyright all throughout the Empire rules and although I did not know the story I kind of figured that Scott and his team wanted to make sure no one touched this concept at all.

While one can copyright the specific expression of particular idea, the idea itself is not copyrightable; sort of like the Wright Brothers' futile court battles attempting to retain the rights to the concept of manned flight. While the idea of shifting time scales was not new, Bowden's expression of it (and the TTC "brand name" he coined for it) was original, and copyrightable.

While I love Napoleonic wargaming, I simply cannot enjoy a game of Empire (although I know people who do). Back in the early '90s, a few sessions of Empire V left such a bad impression that it caused my entire wargame club to quit playing Napoleonics of any kind for five years.

Jeff
warartisan.com

I thought Empire was better than ROTJ but not as good as Star Wars.

Mr G seems to have a history with miniature events in Texas… I believe he is the only GM ever to have suggested to him that it might be best if he didn't participate at Millenniumcon (the largest annual miniature event in Texas)…

yeah, I have heard of another 25mm group who does this…that would be the only real way to get around the issue. But it would take a huge amount of agreement from both sides I would imagine…

That seems to be one of two big issues players have with Empire – arguing over the rules. I suggest that it happens with all rulesets and it's a product of the PLAYERS not the rules.

Every single wargamer you discuss this with says "I just want to have fun and not argue"…then why do they argue? I'm not exempting myself here – it's taken age and maturity for me to figure out my role in the arguments.

Empire is not at fault though. It's sadly humorous to read the accounts (in this very thread!) of players who tried Empire but didn't like it because it degenerated into arguments.

The other big issue is time – Empire takes too long to play. Yes, it takes a while to play. But players make it WORSE by ARGUING and by running every single table and constantly running to the rulebook – halting the game until some perceived important issue is resolved. Players need to learn to play faster and not worry about one or two casulaties on a unit. Just play, try to be fair and don't bitch about stuff. Then everyone can have fun.

Doesn't that really apply to all historical miniatures wargames?

I do subscribe to the idea that no publicity is bad publicity,from the marketing point of view. It was a war event after all.

I don't mind if more Empires et al sell now as the curious want to see what it's all about. And more Fire and Stones, and more C. F. Wesencrafts. Just because something is bought, and read, does not mean that it is adopted and used, unalterably, for ever. Maybe just by two people.

To some the money matters, and to others the glory, yet to others what counts most is the truth.

That bloody copyright was of something not a whole lot different from any number of boardgames having a movement phase and then a combat phase with an advance into the enemy-occupied hex.

Terrible Swift Sword had that, the year before Empire. Some Miniaturists didn't know because they didn't all play boardgames. It just never had a hex, which could have been the engagement area of 320 meters or so.

Not much different from Richard K. Riehn's small-arms zone in the Couriers of 1980-81 talking about Frederick's men.

And where it was different it sounds much like Duffy's telescoped moves.

My reference to Hugh Davies of London may be the most obscure; he had an article in a Seven Years War Journal from the Bill Protz era, in which he had a map scale game with one figure to 500 men. The reference could be dug up if someone was curious. It never was complete, just an idea-starter. But 500 didn't work for me, so how about 300 or 360?

Digging around my closet the other day I ran into a two-inch square model of Mollwitz 1741 on a piece of snowy white cardboard with bits of kitchen-match buildings maybe 3 or 4 mm, which I was using with 2-man battalions in 6mm.

It comes perilously close to that 1d6 Waterloo game mentioned earlier, and even I thought it's too small, after all the work of building it.

I also tried at some point something just like what Shane mentioned, but simplified to 1d6, ie 654321, but as he says that 16% jump seems too big, for the matter of eliteness of firers in musketry. It may be just right for other matters.

Looking over Scott Bowden's more mainstream works he is consistent about pushing eliteness as a very large factor, and that he has a couple favorites: Napoleon's Old Guard, certain parts of the Army of Northern Virginia, Davout's III Corps.

Around the same time Max Hastings was writing about Normandy in a way to suggest eliteness of certain units was the most important factor, according to his interpretations.

Colonel David Hackworth talks about a West Point Protective Association in the officer corps. Many historians push the idea that only a strong and disciplined Continental Army kept the Revolution going, as opposed to the militia and volunteers, in being. Versus European intervention, and a couple kinds of hidden intrigue, missed by both sides in that argument.

I suspect Bowden would buy into the elite point of view; I don't any more but did years ago under the influence of WPPA-type historians.

To me these same arguments carry over to Scharnhorst's liberal reform versus the conservatives after Jena, and to Vietnam, or even today.

Pyrate Captain's point about elitism among the wargamers is well taken, and well-illustrated, or caricatured, by the author and his marketer sitting there at the two-man forum.

To me, Empire was much like what Clay the Elitist said about the light-bulb experience, and his explanation may end up selling a Legacy of Glory. Not that I'd likely follow it.

I'll try that link again of the Ph.D. dissertation demonstrating Goethe was alive when he "robbed" Sterne; if not it's in Google Books. link

Looking over Scott Bowden's more mainstream works he is consistent about pushing eliteness as a very large factor, and that he has a couple favorites: Napoleon's Old Guard, certain parts of the Army of Northern Virginia, Davout's III Corps.

I have never thought of that before! And for comparison…Sam Mustafa writes about the Westphalians….
PDF link

I was playing a game of Empire III one day years ago, and a guy backed up and sat down on a couch where I had two Corps of Russian Infantry in two boxes. Direct hit with both cheeks! That's the worst thing that ever happened to me while playing Empire, and I blame the Rules for letting something like that happen to my Russians. They never even got in the game! I hope they have addressed that in later editions, its important!

Direct hit with both cheeks!

Otherwise known as a moonlanding.

"Moonlanding". Amidst all the entertainment from this thread, that is probably the funniest.

Just when I thought this might devolve into a serious discussion of wargames related stuff…

I'm sad we don't have Mr. Pitts to kick around anymore. Bring Back Pitts! Bring Back Pitts!…

Shane,

You are right about the firepower tables for Empire not being very accurate.

The real factor is what is the range that you are shooting at. I found some stuff on this and the closer you are the better.

At 90 meters tests done shooting at a Cavalry target; Regular troops hit around 53% while Recruits hit around 40% of the time. An Elite might do around 55-60%. So this is only 1.5 times better.

At 180 meters the regular troops were still hitting around 30% but the recruit drop down to 18%. An Elite might do around 35-40% which is about 2.0 times better.

At 270 meters the regular troops have dropped down to 23% and the recruit is down to 15%. So the 2.0 times better for an Elite still holds as they should be around 26-30%.

"An expert said in 1814 that: "I do maintain … that no man was ever killed at 200 yards (180 metres) by a common musket, by the person who aimed at him."

The thing that will keep the unit still in the line is its Morale.

The above are for Musket fire and this would change alot if the unit was armed with Rifles. The Baker Rifle was able to hit a target at 200 meters 9 out of 12 times or around 75%.

Now I only have five different troops Categories.

Elites
Veterans
Regular
Milita
Conscripts

So given the above figures and using Empire tables I would have the following.

At 0-100 meters:

Elites – 30
Veterans – 28
Regular – 26
Milita – 23
Conscripts – 20

At 101-200 meters:

Elites – 16
Veterans – 14
Regular – 12
Milita – 10
Conscripts – 8

I would not have any shooting passed 200 meters since for the most part you would just be wasting lead.

So given this and your example a unit of 12 Old Guard firing at a unit of 12 Conscripts at 100 meters would get this.

Old Guard 12 x 30% = 360% or 3 full figure casualties and a 60% chance for a 4th.

Conscripts 12 x 20 = 240% or 2 full figure casualties and a 40% chance for a 3rd.

Yes the Old Guard would still break the Conscript unit but it would not be getting off scott-free.

Same situation but now the units are 180 meters apart.

Old Guard 12 x 16% = 192% or 1 full figure casualties and a 92% chance for a 2nd.

Conscripts 12 x 8 = 96% or a 96% chance for a single casualty.

I did like the percent dice for figuring out loses since it did not require a bucket of dice.

But the time it took to get even one turn done with Empire was horrible.

I was just kidding of course. Bill did the right thing.

Rallynow

I'm sad we don't have Mr. Pitts to kick around anymore. Bring Back Pitts! Bring Back Pitts!…

As I type, he has only 1 more day in the DH, so maybe he'll be back for more. He seems like the type of idiot that will try again.

@docdennis: If you do get a chance, around the middle of Fire and Stone Duffy does in fact address that situation, in the section about "bog houses."

He is talking about the latrine on a fortress bastion sticking out over no man's land from above, and comments that any soldier trying it during a siege would be vulnerable to a fate 'too horrible to contemplate.'

No kidding.

On the eliteness and musketry we do have pretty good data for Bunker Hill where what would you like to call them, untrained militia or landwehr, with only fifteen rounds a man on average, in three assaults caused 1050 British regulars to fall. Out of ultimately maybe 2500 total engaged.

If it was 15 rounds, and then on the third assault they ran out of rounds, maybe they fired something like 6-6-3, and that makes 15.

Maybe 1000-1200 firing, along the line? And maybe 2000 attacking? The figures can be looked up and figured out. Most situations we are lacking in enough details. But how does that square with Bowden's elite idea, where the militia get 2% or what have you?

And again New Orleans, a comparable story.

Yes that is good data but it should be taken as out of the norm. The British commander lacked respect for American riflemen and drove his troops up that hill without the usual prep fire by artillery or even an effective skirmish line. Bad show for the Brits!

Plus at New Orleans the majority of the Jackson's men were probably armed with Rifle Muskets.

Which as I mentioned above can be very nasty out pass 200 meters.

Also if the the Americans had more ammo it would not have been them running away.

Plus you need to remember at most of the Americans grew up hunting and while they lack the discipline to stand they were probably better shots than the British.

Lol

This thread doth wander , not bad, just sayin

Do you prefer Hershey or Cadbury?

Ghirardelli.

For a thread that began in a toxic fashion, it now has all the best features of gaming:
discursive and anecdote-riddled. Humour and wise-cracks. Gaming tips and observations.
Keep it going fellas.

Here's 400…and

Page 9…

When we get to 10 do we pop the Champagne?

I don't know about Champagne, but I'm about to pour a couple fingers of good Irish single-malt . . . Tyrconnell, to be precise.

Mmmmmmm . . .

I' am certainly in favour of keeping the thread open, But question how long it can be resusitated?

May Stars and Bars be Forever!

Well his tirade is back up, but now without the threat of legal action.

This is great entertainment.

That damn Armintrout, letting people like us post stuff and all that.

it remains unfortunate that his actions continue to erode the site's reputation and the reputation of all associated with him and The Miniatures Page.

My reputation is eroded! Oh no!

"it remains unfortunate that his actions continue to erode the site's reputation and the reputation of all associated with him and The Miniatures Page."

I really had to laugh at that one. I doubt the extremely small amount of members on the lame site really care one way or the other. Since he locked the thread over there there can be no opposite views or opinions. Seems a little cowardly doesn't it? Robert

My reputation is eroded! Oh no!

My rep eroded ? How does something in shreds already
suffer from erosion ??

So this is how it feels to get your rep eroded? Man if I knew it was going to be this bad I would have never gotten caught up in this controversy! Shame on me!

Contritely George "The Kingfish" Stevens

I guess he heard back from his lawyer, regarding how much it would cost him to sue TMP…

I think your rep is eroded just because you have an account on TMP. Participation in the 'happy thread' isn't required.

The way I look at it, you can post what you want on the thread because you're eroded anyway just for being here.

(If you're reading this post – THIS MEANS YOU)

I had an erosion once…the MO gave me a white cream and took away my leave pass for Budapest!

Was that too personal?